House Standing Committee on Education

Okay.

Aloha, Kakou. Good afternoon, everyone. This is your Committee on Education. Today's date is January the 30th. It's about 2:04 PM, and we are in Conference Room 309 in the State Capitol. We have about a dozen bills on the agenda today. But first, a quick announcement from Vice Chair. Vice Chair?

Hi, everyone. Just wanted to share, you know, given today's weather conditions, we want to make sure that we get everybody home nice and dry to your family. So, just, if we can—if you can—kindly just consider either standing on your testimony or keeping your remarks brief, you know, your input is valuable.

Same request for Members, so that we can move efficiently through our agenda today. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Okay, Members, starting off, I wanted to speak quickly about HB 440. That's with regards to immigration, schools, and state hospitals. There's a decision made that included stakeholders and advocacy—advocacy groups—including those who helped craft a piece of legislation.

We pull that from the agenda because the proposal, as it stood, and as it was to be crafted, it actually didn't add any additional legal protections. And that's because, simply put, immigration policy is set on the federal level, and federal law supersedes state law. So, we were not able to actually make any meaningful changes in that space.

The proposal did offer, however, an administrative solution potentially. And we thought it would be best not to incorporate—incorporate that—into statute, as it would probably make things worse. And so, that's why it's off the proposal for today. But rest assured, we are looking at that issue and we're just using different mechanisms to address that particular concern.

Okay. Having said that, we're going to move to the first Bill on the agenda, HB 330. This is with regards to school impact fees. First up, we have Department of Education offering testimony with comments. DOE with comments. Okay. Next we have SFA offering testimony and support.

Good afternoon. Ricky Fujitani representing the School Facilities Authority. We support this Bill. The key is to align policy with implementation. That's what the Bill seeks to do.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next we have Tax Foundation of Hawaii offering comments. Next we have Hawaii YIMBY.

Excuse me.

Oh, thank you for being here.

That was quick. Tom Yamachika for the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. We did submit written comments. The thing that we wanted to point out especially was that the school impact fees are now going in a fund that hasn't been used for many years.

The balance in this fund has built up over time, and there's now over $20 million in it. And not only that, but the predecessor to the school impact fees, the fair share contributions, which, by the way, haven't been collected for at least 17 years. There's still close to $9 million in that account.

And that account's been building up over the years. So if the government's going to take money away from taxpayers, whoever they are, we would like to see the money used and not just sitting around somewhere. And we're hoping that some change in the program, perhaps this one will do it, could facilitate that.

Be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have, if DOE is available on Zoom, just want to give them the opportunity as we're working through that. We also have Hawaii YIMBY in support. We have Hawaii Appleseed offering comments. And then we have Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in person offering comments.

Dean Uchida from Department of Education. Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing us to testify remotely. The weather is kind of bad out here, so. But DOE, we stand on our testimony providing comments on the Bill. Available, any questions you might have.

Okay, thank you so much. That's all I have on my list. Is there anyone else wishing to provide testimony on HB 339. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? I have a couple quick questions for SFA. Thank you for being here. And so can you, can you speak, does the Board of Education currently.

An emergency has been reported in this building.

Quick recess.

We were told that it's a false alarm, so we will continue. Thank you again for being here. The question is for the BLE's current practice, do they have the authority to dissolve the impact fee for a particular area?

Yes. The policy is with the Board of Ed and they have the authority to dissolve.

Could they do, are they able to do that without a public hearing?

I don't think so. Yes? I, I don't know. We do have a proposal in front of the Board of Ed right now that seeks to dissolve the impact fee district for West Maui.

Okay. And do you know if you assume that responsibility, what will. What would be your process as it relates to when you would decide whether or not to waive an impact fee?

You would do the same analysis. Instead of presenting it to the Board of Ed, we present it to the SFA Board to dissolve an impact fee district.

Okay. All right. Thank you so much. Okay, quick question for Department of Education. Thank you for being here. And so one of the testifiers indicated that you folks have $20 million aggregated from impact fees. Is that true?

I would need to check on that and get back to you. I don't know the exact balance right now, but I'll find out and get back to you guys.

But there is a balance?

I believe so.

Is there a reason as to why it's not being utilized right now?

I need to get some details and get report back to you.

Okay, thank you so much. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none, we're going to move on to the next Bill, HB, do you have a question?

Moving on to the next bill, we have HB 1188. This is with regards to Workforce Housing Stipend Program. First up, we have Department of Education offering comments.

Aloha, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, members of the committee. Sean Bacon, Assistant Superintendent, speaking on behalf of the department. The department stands on its written testimony and provides comments, and we thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you so much. Next we have Charter School Commission offering testimony in support. Next we have AG's Office offering comments via Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, members. Ann Horiuchi, Department of the Attorney General. As we set forth in our testimony, we wanted to highlight one of the terms used in the bill, quote, 'within commuting distance.' We find that to be a vague term, so we would suggest that a distance in miles be included in the eligibility requirement.

Also, the department suggests that wording be included regarding the repayment of the stipend, if that's a requirement necessary. We've included suggested language in our testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'll be available for questions.

Thank you so much for your testimony. In the future, can you please see if you can adjust your volume because it's very muffled and we can't hear you. And now because of the alarm, we can't hear you even, even more. Okay, now we're okay. They said it's okay. Okay, next up we have HSTA providing testimony in support in person.

Aloha. Sarah Milianta-Laffin for HSTA. Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair. We stand on our written testimony, but I also say if teachers cannot afford to live here, we can't teach here, so we need housing.

Thank you for that. Next we have HGEA offering testimony, providing comments.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Nui Sebast with HGA. We'll stand on our written testimony, which provides comments. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you so much. We also have testimony from the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus, testimony in support, and we have testimony from two individuals, both in support. Anyone else? HB 188. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Vice Chair.

Question for HSTA, question. Just want to ask if HSTA supports the department's recommendation to change from the rural or underserved to hard-to-staff schools in determining eligibility, and then is there any other additional criteria that you, you know, you feel you've determined would help with, you know, the teacher shortages?

Thank you so much, Vice Chair, for the question. Yes, we do, as far as I understand, and then, Jason, is there additional components?

No. Just for this bill.

Yeah, it's a great starting part where we're at, but thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none, going on to the next one. We have HB 624. This is regarding school psychologist and licensure pathway. First up, we have, first we have Department of Education offering comments.

Hi. Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. We stand on our written comments, and I'd just like to emphasize the department would be willing to lead the work group if this is established. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We also have testimony from the Board of Psychology, offering comments in person.

Good afternoon, Chair Woodson and Vice Chair La Chica and members of the committee. My name is Christopher Fernandez. I'm Executive Officer to the Board of Psychology. I'm here to stand on the board's testimony supporting and offering comments.

Thank you so much for being here. Next we have the Hawaii Psychological Association offering comments.

Hi. This is Leslie Baunach. I'm the co--the chair for the Legislation Committee for the Hawaii Association of School Psychologists. We stand on our written testimony. The only issue that we had is the, the licensing would be under DCCA as the other unit 13 educators are that currently work in the Department of Education.

This would be for school psychologists to not only work for the DOE, but also private schools, preschools, developmental centers, and universities, so all education places. So we do not think it would be appropriate for the Department of Education to be leading that or one of the main people involved.

If that was the case, then we would need representatives from the university system for Hawaii for early intervention, from Department of Health, from the Hawaii Association of Independent Schools, etcetera. So it would need to include all education departments that we could potentially work in. Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your testimony. Next we have Hawaii Primary Care Association offering testimony in support. We have HGA offering testimony in support. We have individual--oh, thank you.

Nui Sebast, here with HGA. We'll stand on our written testimony in support. Mahalo.

Thank you so much. Okay. And we have testimony from about six individuals, all offering testimony in support. Is there anyone else? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Question for DOE. Per the previous testifier, do you have a response to that?

We will be active participants and we'll collaborate on the makeup of the work group.

Okay, thank you so much. Members, any other questions? I have a quick question for HGA, if they are here or on Zoom. They are not. We will move on. Okay, moving on to the next bill. All right, members, are there any other questions? Okay, moving on to the next bill, HB 625.

This is with regards to education and the Nationally Certified School Psychologist Incentive Program. First we have Department of Education offering comments.

Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica and members of the committee. Sean Bacon here speaking on behalf of the department. Department stands on its written testimony offering comments and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you for being here. Next we have the Hawaii Primary Care Association offering testimony and support. Next we have HGEA offering testimony and support.

Nui Sebastian with HGEA. We'll stand at written testimony and support model.

Okay, thank you. Next we have the Hawaii Association of School Psychologists in support.

Aloha. Leslie Baunach, the Hawaii Association of School Psychologists. In addition to the testimony submitted. I just wanted to offer comments and I wish HGEA was there as well. Haasp has been working with HGEA to address these matters through collective bargaining.

But we have received many, many, many denials from the Department of Education saying they are not willing to collectively bargain with just the school psychs anymore. So I'm not really sure about their testimony. It's kind of confusing to us, but I defer to HGEA on that one. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all I have on my list. Is there anyone else? HB 625, seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Okay, seeing none. Moving on to the next bill, we have HB 1314. This is with regards to youth mental health for all schools. First up, we have Department of Education offering comments in person.

You can go ahead if you can talk through it.

Good afternoon. Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. We stand on our testimony which offers comments. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next we have testimony from the AG's office via Zoom.

Good afternoon. Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica. Members and where you see from the Department of the Attorney General. Under the duties imposed by this bill, the Department notes that schools could be liable if they fail to properly identify and address a student's mental health issue.

This could be compounded by the fact that schools would have to address or assess and monitor the mental health of thousands of students, possibly to allow the schools to make good faith efforts to implement the mental health check ins suggested by this bill. Our department suggests including a broad liability waiver and we've included language in our testimony.

Thank you and I'll be available for questions.

Thank you. We received your testimony.

Next we have Hawaii Youth Services Network offering comments. Hawaii Primary Care Association and support. Hawaii Association of School Psychologists offering testimony and support. Democratic Party Hawaii Education Caucus in support. And we have testifiers, four individuals all. Three individuals offering testimony and support and one in opposition. Anyone else? HB 1314 seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

A quick question for DOE. Can you quickly just articulate some of the processes you folks have within public schools to help particularly identify mental health issues?

Sure. We have a student support process and it's a team gathers whether it's a noticed concern or the student has self expressed a concern. That team gathers the data, defines the needs, develops supports, implements supports and then evaluate the supports and I'll give you some numbers.

For school year 23/24 we had about 12,031 students receiving school based behavioral health services. We had 7,136 students received multiple services based on needs identified through the student support process.

Okay, thank you for that. So this particular proposal was drafted by a formal former DOE employee. And so do you think that there's maybe some room for improvement in this space?

We can always improve. And knowing the great need that many of our students have, we do have a concerted effort to diligently monitor and act upon any perceived issues that a student may be having.

Okay, thank you. Members, go ahead. You can stay up, deputy.

This is mine. So my question is, is the department, okay, doing a reactive versus proactive approach to addressing this. Understanding that particularly in some schools. For example, there's one elementary school that didn't have a counselor for a while. That would normally be the go to resource outside of a teacher.

In these instances, if it's not being observed by the teacher. So behavioral changes or if it's not being brought up by the student, or if it's not being brought up by a parent, it could be happening but not being addressed simply because it's not being observed or is the department going to be okay with that?

We definitely want to provide services and be aware of it is unfortunate if something goes unnoticed. But we are diligent. We train, we have counselors. If the school doesn't have a counselor, like you said, we do provide training for teachers to recognize signs and then report to the appropriate personnel.

We have complex area personnel who also support the schools with their needs. So we can always improve. We never want to leave anyone behind. But we do have to recognize or it does have to be self reported to us.

Thank you.

Sorry for you, deputies. Speaking of self reporting, can you educate the committee on what kind of tools, technology, apps, otherwise that you folks use as part of maybe like an early surveillance system?

We do. We have Panorama, a tool called Panorama. We have additional apps that students can self report on. We use the BIMAS screening tool as part of that screening process if appropriate. We have the health tracker. What is the Trust Circle? We have an app called the Trust Circle. Sorry, I couldn't think of that.

That allows students to either self report or share concerns they might have about another person.

And are these apps available to all students or is this on a selected basis? Certain campuses, only.

Certain campuses use different tools.

We do have an SEL screener that's uniform across all schools and through that screener we are able to identify needs or potential needs of kids that would allow us to dig deeper and provide additional supports based on the results from that screener and that every school does offer or does give to the students every year. Sorry.

Thank you, deputies. Thank you, Chair. Thank you members. Vice Chair, go ahead.

Deputy. Follow up. So when because these are based on students like self reporting, like how do. Who will, who is the risk? Who will assess like the data that they, you know, based on the data.

That's part of the student support process team. So they're identified people who are on this team team at the school. Typically it involves the counselor, administrator, school based behavioral support personnel, district personnel and teacher.

No school psychologist.

School psychologists do come into the equation based on an initial assessment. Right? Who else do we need to bring based on the needs that the student is exhibiting is there from my understanding.

That's why we have those two other bills is because we have a significant gap and shortage of school psychologists. I think I recall when I was watching the. I think it was the ways and means hearing there was a request for mental health interventionists.

Can you speak a little bit as to the role that twenties something like mental health interventionists from as a budget request from the department would do to fill the mental health gap in needs that a school psychologist would not be able to fill.

And school psychologists are a very important role group that we do need in the department. And mental health interventionists have a different level of skill and can address needs that might go beyond the scope of a school counselor or a school behavior specialist.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none. Moving on to the next bill. We have HB 616. This is with regards to the Department of Education and school safety. First up, we have Department of Education offering comments.

Aloha, Chairs and Vice Chairs in the committee. Elizabeth Higashi from the Department of Education. We stand on our written testimony, which provides comments on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have Charter School Commission offering testimony in support. Okay. Next we have AG offering comments via Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, and members. Anne Horiuchi from the Department of the Attorney General. This is a comment in our testimony, one for clarity, regarding the language covering the cost incurred from serving temporary restraining orders related to the harassment. We suggested a clarifying amendment in our testimony on our first page.

Also, we noted that the bill does not define what constitutes harassment in the new sections. So to address that, we've included language referring to Section 711 to 1106 and tying that to the person's status as an educational worker.

And then finally, in order--the bill provides for when the educational worker is seeking judicial protection from harassment, that they're entitled to a leave of absence with pay. We suggested a clarifying amendment for that section as well. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the bill, and I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Available via Zoom. And we also have Hawaii Teachers, HSTA, offering testimony in support.

Aloha. Sarah Milianta-Laffin, on behalf of HSTA. Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair. I will stand on our written testimony, but I also just say my job here is to be a practitioner, telling you the lived experience of school teachers while I'm with you, and every teacher I know has been at some point menaced by someone on a campus. I had a dad follow me to my car because he wanted me to change a grade for his son to be able to apply for a private school for ninth grade.

And it's very scary, but thankfully I have a supportive administrator who went ahead and issued that parent a trespassing letter and so he wasn't on campus again, but teachers have these stories. All of us do. So please, if you have questions, ask us.

Thank you so much. Next we have UPW offering testimony in support in person. We have HGA offering testimony in support in person.

Hello. Nui Sebast here with HGA. We'll stand on our written testimony in strong support. Mahalo.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have Inger Stonehill offering testimony in support via Zoom.

Oh, hi. I don't know if you. Oops. I don't know if you can see me, but. Hi, My name is Inger Stonehill and. Thank you, Chairman Woodson and Vice Chair La Chica and the committee. I wanted to. I submitted written testimony page and a half. I'm not going to read the whole thing.

My main point and my main is the consistency that the Department of Education has in all their schools. And just like the representative from HSTA, all of us teachers have many stories. I have a story. Other teachers have a story.

And I am one of the people that have introduced this bill because I don't want other teachers to go through what I had to. I had to change my schools. I've been a teacher for 20 years, suffered from anxiety. So when the Department of Education did this visitor code of conduct, it is not consistent across the board.

Not all schools have it. I don't know. Either they don't care or I'm not sure. So I stand here in strong support of this bill because I want some consistency. And educators should not have to fear for their safety while fulfilling their duty to nurture and educate Hawaii's youth.

And my last thing that I want to say by Martin Luther King, quote, be a thermostat, not a thermometer. And that underscores the need for proactive leadership to address this issue, not reactive. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next we have individual testimony from Lindsay Chambers in person in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, members of the committee, thank you for opportunity to be here. I stand on my written testimony, but did want to provide some additional context that wasn't in there. A total of 30 TROs have been filed against a known perpetrator who has repeatedly targeted educational workers for the last 14 years.

The majority of these TROs were filed by DOE employees, and I was one of them. When employees under my supervision raised safety concerns about this perpetrator, DOE leadership didn't step up to help. They told me as their supervisor to get a TRO to protect them.

And when the time came for my court hearing, I was forced to face this individual alone. No one from the DOE or state showed up to represent me in court. And my husband, who's an attorney, had to step in because the very institution that put me in this position did not support me.

It was clear under the law that supervisors cannot file TROs on behalf of their employees, something the DOE should have known before advising me to do so. This guidance immediately put a target on my family and we endured years of harassment, abuse and threats.

I filed the TRO for myself, which resulted in an injunction against harassment issued by Judge Richard Deal. This is exactly why a standardized response procedure is critical. No one in the DOE knows how to implement a response procedure consistently statewide. It varies from manager to manager, principal to principal, with no consistency.

These are not private legal matters, as the DOE and AG assert. The harassment is happening through the course of our employment and the employer has a responsibility to address it.

As I was writing my testimony, I came across a letter from Supervising Attorney General James Halvorson which stated your perpetrator's nasty and vulgar attacks to you and other employees who deal with him regarding the education of his children unfortunately are a part of the duties of employees involved with his children's education.

This letter was sent on September 20th, 2021, nine months after the court issued an injunction against harassment because they clearly understood the threat I was facing. This level of disregard by the state is outrageous and a far cry from DHRD's policy 800.002 pertaining to workplace violence programs mentioned in my written testimony. According to the

DHRD Memo, revised on February 15th, 2012, all state departments are covered under this directive. Last session, a representative questioned whether we needed a law for this issue. My response to that is that nothing will change unless the legislature forces the department to act.

Look at what it took for them to produce a code of conduct for visitors that was long overdue. It took pressure from victims and the legislature. They did not do this willingly or proactively. When the executive branch fails to protect its own employees, laws become necessary to ensure accountability.

Once again, the issue is not the absence of policies or codes of conduct. What is lacking is a clear standardized procedure for addressing harassment when educators come forward. HB 616 seeks to rectify this gap that the department needs to fill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in person. I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you so much for being here. We also have individual testimony all in support from seven other individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to provide testimony for HB 616? Seeing none, members? Are there any questions? Okay, please go ahead.

I'm not sure who I can ask this question to or who whoever can answer it would help. Under educational workers, does this cover all state workers in the school system? The janitors, the cafeteria workers, all of the likes. They're all prone to harassment just the same as the teacher. Would this cover them as well?

It covers all workers, yeah. Members. Any other questions? Okay, Vice Chair.

Question for the Department. If you kindly just share with the committee, just what is the current safety protocol when a staff does experience harassment or a staff member witnesses somebody being harassed on campus?

And I think you mentioned in your testimony that principals do undergo training, but do staff also undergo de escalation training as well?

So our principals, it's really important initially for all staff in regards to witnessing or being a victim of harassment to report it to their supervisor, immediate supervisor, and then from there the immediate supervisor can address the issue and consult in regards with our safety security branch.

But most importantly, it really varies to the degree of what that harassment accusation is and who it's against. We do have our visitors code of conduct, which.

And I think one of the things that I want to take time to acknowledge is those who testified today, we have been very grateful in the past year to collaborate with them and hear from them their stories in regards to how as a department, we can improve on our policies and implementation of them.

What was also really important with our supervisors is in regards to, once they do that report, they're depending on the situation.

There are different pathways they can take, leading through issuing letters to their harassers, notifying them of their violation, which could lead to a trespass notice, not allowing them to our campus, or changing our lines of communication where in some cases we may no longer allow that individual to have communication with our employees.

And just quick follow up. And if, I mean, it does vary, like school by school, and if any staff member or teacher, if they do feel like the action has not been sufficient, what then is done next. Where can they go? You know, what then, right.

If they feel like nobody advocates or nobody has, you know, nobody either believes that the threat is real or nobody has. They don't feel like the protection is there or no. When does it escalate to the next level or where does it go like. And what does the department do to address.

Continue to take it seriously because any perceived form of threat or violence should be taken seriously.

I think it's really important to acknowledge, you know, we hope all of our supervisors take all of our threats seriously and provide the appropriate response.

But within the department with any concern or complaint, if we feel that it's not handled by the immediate supervisor, there's always the opportunity in regards to either going up the chain above, or we do have an ethics hotline which does allow for individuals to anonymously report concerns and issues that are then investigated in regards and followed up on those procedures.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you Vice Chair, members. Any other questions? A quick question for the DOE. And so per the 30 TROs, has and. And let me just acknowledge the work that you folks have done. We appreciate the efforts that you have taken thus far. But per the testifier and the 30 TROs, has anything that you folks have.

Have done in place since meeting with that group help prevent that particular circumstance from happening?

I think one of the things that we have been tightening up is the procedures. The visitor code of conduct has been really helpful in regards to, and that's something we can follow up on the consistency of implementation.

But it has given us something that we can clearly communicate with all community members on what our expectation as a department is engaging with others.

And so that allows us that when there is a violation, especially with an individual who perhaps like this 30 many parent or any individual who violates, we now can write them a letter and issue the visitor code of conduct and say, you are in violation of our code of conduct and make very clear as a department our next steps and procedures that if the conduct isn't followed, which could lead to either a trespass order or cutting off that communication between the employee and that person.

So that has really helped us in regards to giving better definitions in regards to what we expect in our interactions between other. Between us and the community and each other.

But per this particular individual that's been cited, the letter would not be sufficient to prevent him from his actions. Or would you not agree with that?

I can't speak on that specific individual. My apologies. I can follow up on that, but I don't know in regards to that specific case.

Okay, thank you so much. Thank you for being here. A quick question for Mrs. Chambers. So thank you, Mrs. Chambers, for being here. Appreciate the work that you have done on this issue. You have been involved and shared your knowledge. The department has been working with you to make things better.

But why do you feel that this bill is still needed?

In the case with this individual who has 30 TROs, they have issued him letters. He is not. They're not able to serve him many times. A lot of times these letters don't reach him.

And we don't find out till after the fact when I speak to new victims, that they're told, yes, this letter was written by the DOE and it was never delivered despite us getting a copy. There are just some people that are not reasonable, and a letter will not change that.

A code of conduct addresses behavior up front, and that's for reasonable adults. When these incidents of harassment occur and you heard it from the DOE. There is not a consistent protocol. And I invite you to look up the DHRD policy because it is very thorough.

There are templates and reporting structures of who to call, what to fill out, who else to include from other state agencies is very thorough. So I think I'm just confused as to why the DOE cannot stand up a response procedure and then roll out training system wide for all employees.

So even teachers know who to call and what to do in incidents of harassment.

Okay, thank you so much. And quick question for follow up for DOE. Do you folks have. Are you familiar with this DHRD policy? Have you looked at it?

My apologies. Me personally, I have not looked at it. Not familiar. But I will after this.

You will look at it? Okay. And let us know what you think.

I will.

Thank you so much. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none. Moving on to the next bill. We have HB 88. This is with regards to DOE in a three-year pilot program for athletic travel. First up, we have DOE offering comments.

Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. We stand on our testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next we have Charter School Commission offering testimony in support in person via Zoom or via Zoom. Next we have AG offering comments via Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members. Anne Horiuchi from the Department. As noted in our testimony, any sports related travel for student athletes must comply with Title IX as well as Section 302A-461 of the Hawaii Revised Statute, so we recommend amending the bill to explicitly require compliance with applicable state and federal laws and we also suggest that there be--the bill require reporting on that type of data that would be required. Thank you. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Next we have testimony from six other individuals, all in support. Anyone else wishing to provide testimony on HB 88? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Okay, seeing none. Moving on to the next bill. We have HB 626. This is with regards to Ho'akea Program.

First, we have DOE offering testimony in support, in person.

Aloha, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members of the Committee. Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, testifying on behalf of the Department. The Department stands on its written testimony, in strong support of this measure. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have the County of Hawaii Mayor's Office offering testimony in support. Hawaii County Council Person Kimball, in support. Hawaii Parks and Recreation, in support. Kingdom's Pathways, in support, via Zoom. Kingdom Pathways? Not present. Malama Learning Center, in support. Malama Aina Foundation, in support. There's five individuals all in support.

One testifying via Zoom. Are they present? Thank you. Kaala Farm, in Support. La'i'Ōpua 2020, two individuals both in support. Kanehunamoku Voyaging Academy offering testimony in support. Kuleana Coral Restoration, in support. Maui Huliau Foundation, in support. Kaho Kave, in support, via Zoom, individual. Two other—two other individuals, both in support.

Anyone else on HB 626? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Okay, seeing none. We're going to go on to the next Bill. Okay, we have HB 1496. This is with regards to the Kaiapuni Program Complex Area Superintendent, Board of Education membership, and Kaiapuni Program support expansion. First up, we have the State Board of Education offering comments in person.

Board Member Arakaki? I do not see him. Okay, next, we have Department of Education, offering comments.

Aloha, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, Members of the Committee. I'm Tammy Chun, Deputy Superintendent. We're going to be standing on our testimony supporting the intent of the Bill and happy to answer questions.

Supporting intent. Thank you so much. We have HSTA offering testimony in support, in person.

Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair. Sarah Milianta-Laffin for HSTA. We are in strong support and stand on our written testimony.

Thank you so much. We have Aha Kaleo offering testimony in support, via Zoom. Aha Kaleo, offering testimony in support? Hana High Elementary School, in support. Okiluh Kai Puni, offering testimony in support. Maleo Kakao Oahu, offering testimony in support. Mahaka Pui Pui, testimony in support.

Attention, an emergency has been reported in this building.

Melee Kane Ali, offering testimony in support.

And we have what, like 100? 120 testifiers all in support for this proposal. Anyone wishing to provide testimony on HB1496 seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Okay, seeing none, we're going to go on to the next bill. HB1471. This is with regards to the DOE and Korean language, incorporating that into this schools.

First we have Board Member Araki offering comments. Next we have DOE offering comments and support. Or, excuse me, providing comments not in support.

Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. We stand on our written testimony which provides comments on this measure.

Thank you so much. And we have a couple of dozen individuals all offering testimony and support. Is there anyone else wishing to provide testimony on HB1471 seeing none. Members, Any questions? Please go ahead.

Thank you Chair. Question for Heidi Armstrong, please. I'm curious, has there been a survey, to see how many students would like to enroll in these language classes?

Yes, we- Korean is currently available to be offered at schools as a world language choice. We have middle schools offering the course and we have some 123456 high schools offering multiple levels of the course. We also in 2024 had 18 students receive a Seal of Biliteracy for the recognizing the Korean language.

So it is- we are able to offer it in our schools.

Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you chair.

Thank you so much. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none. Moving on to the last bill, HB 1346. This is with regards to the DOE and automatic step increases for teachers. First we have Department of Education offering comments.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Sean Bacon speaking on behalf of the department. The department stands on its written testimony and offering comments on this bill. We thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you so much. Next we have AG's offering comments via Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair Woodson with an O, not an E. Vice Chair La Chica and members of the committee. My name is Fiamma and I'm here on behalf of the department of the attorney general. The current wording of this bill may conflict with section 89-9 HRS, which requires wages to be a subject of collective bargaining.

The proposed language is similar to wording that was repealed in 2016 by Act 87. The repeal provided consistency with the law and reinserting the wording could once again create a conflict. We've included suggested language to resolve this in our written testimony. I'm available via Zoom for your questions. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next we have BNF offering testimony in opposition and purpose. In person, excuse me. HSTA in support.

Hello Chair and Vice Chair, Sarah Milianta-Laffin on behalf of HSTA. We did hear this committee's feedback in previous times we brought up this bill and so we actually brought the collective bargaining language so you can see it today.

So in Article 20 of the current Collective, Unit 5 Collective Bargaining Agreement has the language that states the following, "the parties recognize that annual incremental step movements are a viable recruiting and retention tool.

Teachers who are not at the top of the salary schedule and who have effective evaluation shall move to the next highest level step of the corresponding class at the beginning of each school year. Annual incremental step movements are subject to funding."

So this bill as it is, if it's passed and funded, will satisfy the last sentence and go above and beyond to help us recruit and retain excellent teachers. So the language is there in collective bargaining. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you for your testimony. Next we have the Democratic Party for Hawaii Education Caucus offering testimony support. HGEA testimony in support. Or excuse me, that's not in support, it's in opposition.

Nui Sebastian, with HGEA, we respectfully oppose this measure. You know, while we support the notion of providing better compensation for our teachers, it must be done via the bargaining process. We find it's unfair to, for any one bargaining unit to be singled out for special treatment. Mahalo.

Thank you so much for your testimony. And we have four individuals offering testimony and support. We have one individual offering testimony and support via Zoom, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

He has no power on Maui right now.

Okay.

Hello, Chair Woodson. Thank you guys so much for hearing this again. I am John Fitzpatrick. I'm a teacher at Kūlanihākoʻi High School. And I'm in strong support of finally getting annual step increases. Hopefully it gets through the whole time or the whole legislative session. CN doesn't die. So for me personally, what automatic or in this contract.

So it's really the Department of Finance, it's really easy to say that, hey, this should be done in negotiations. Two years ago, when we were negotiating this contract that we're currently stuck in there was a $900 million surplus that was put into a special fund. I believe it's around $900 million surplus.

So I feel like it's a little disingenuous to say that there's no money for these annual step increases and be like, hey, just go negotiate it. But in negotiations, they never ever offered us. In fact, this century, they have never offered us step increases. So there's been surpluses, there's been deficits. It has never happened. All right.

And also for HGEA employees, I think they also deserve step increases as well. I have a DLNR friend who's like, barely struggling to make it as well. And they also deserve step increases. For me personally, I've done the calculations.

In this contract alone, I am missing out on $22,000 for annual step increases, which means paying my rent, paying for an ER visit. Like today I just went to the ER for really bad ear infection, and I have no idea how much that's going to cost.

But all these little things matter, and I think it's a sign of respect to everyone that we get what's actually in our contract. For a brand new teacher I did the calculations. Assuming that the pay scale doesn't go up at all, they lose out on about $150,000 throughout the course of their career.

So these are major retention and recruitment tools. And I really hope that people find a way to actually fund them. I would like to ask Superintendent Hayashi if he does ask for the money to go into the budget for annual step increases. So please finally get our teachers this well deserved and hard earned step increases. And mahalo for your time on this very stormy day.

Thank you so much. And just for future reference, we're not going to ask questions of the testifiers. It's not appropriate in this setting. Any other testifiers for HB 1346 seeing non. Members, any questions? I have a quick question for AG please. If they are available via Zoom.

Please disregard. This is a false alarm mahalo.

Thank you for still being here. Did you hear the HSTA's testimony stating that there is articulation in their contract for this? Do you have response to that?

I did. So I heard that it's currently in their contract is their correct testimony.

Yeah. That's a good summation.

Okay. So basically the whole topic of wages is subject to collective bargaining negotiations. And so that might be in their contract this year, but I don't know what would be in their contract in five years.

But your argument is that it's not in the contract, but if it's in the contract then what is your argument?

If it's in the contract right now? That that's, that wages are a topic of collective bargaining negotiations. So if it's in the contract right now, that's part of the negotiation topic. Does that not make sense?

No, but I appreciate it. Thank you for your response.

I can get back to you on your question if you'd like and respond in writing.

Yes, please. Thank you.

Okay.

Member, any other questions? Seeing none. Recess. Thank you. Members voting on several bills. First up we have HB330. This is with regards to SFA and school impact fees.

Members, the recommendation is I would like to pass this with the HD1 adding a new section that says that the SFA's board must follow the same process is that that's in place right now currently for the Board of Education if they wanted to consider waiving school impact fees.

Besides that defecting the date to July 1st, 3000 Members. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 330 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [VOTE CALLING] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. Moving on to the next Bill, HB1188 Teacher Workforce Housing Stipend Program. Members on this proposal the phrasing should say public school and charter schools. We're going to make that clarification throughout. Also there is phrasing with regards to rural and underserved.

We're going to incorporate the statutorily- statutorily articulated hard to staff as that is already defined. It means the same thing. And also on page three lines 1 and 2 we're going to truncate that sentence and for it to simply say, "does not own a residence."

We'll take out the rest of that sentence and that will alleviate the concerns with regards to ambiguity per the distance from the school. On page three also Members, we're going to blank out that amount and incorporate it into the committee report and per AG's recommendation.

We will look at the language that was already statutorily built regarding the early educators type in program and that's just to keep the statute consistent throughout with regards to education statutes. That's a good practice and technical non substitute for changes and we will defect the date till July 1st, 3000.

Can't get it out and various questions, comments, concerns? Make sure for the-

Quick comment Chair.

Yes, please go ahead.

I just want to comment. You know teachers are vital. We need them but we have to get them housed. We have to find ways to be able to keep them and support them so that they can, you know, enact their mission to help educate our Keiki.

But I think we also need to have some language in the future that helps everybody that works within the DOE. So the teachers are vital, but so are the other staff that operate the schools. Thank you Chair.

Thank you for that. Any other comments, concerns, questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 1188. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Noting the excused absence of Representative Capella. Are there any Members wishing to vote no? Any Members voting with reservation? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. Moving on to HB624. This is with regards to DOE, DCCA and school psychologist licensure. Members per the testimony I would like to add both the Board of Psychology and the Hawaii Psychological Association. Besides that, we want to defect the date to July 1st, 3000. Questions? Comments concerns Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 624. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Noting the excused absence of Rep. Capella for this for the remainder of the agenda. Any Members voting no? Any Members voting with reservation? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. I appreciate your support on this. Hawaii is the only state in the union that doesn't have this type of licensure. So hopefully we can have that in place here in short order. Moving on to the next bill, we have HB625. This is with regards to the Nationally Certified School Psychologist Incentive Program.

Recommendations to pass this out, blanking out the amount incorporating into the committee report and defecting the date. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 625. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendment. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any Members voting no? Any Members voting with reservation? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members going on to HB1314. This is with regards to mental health plans for all students. Members, I would like to pass this with the HD1 accepting AG's testimony. I want to add a section that says that ensures some sort of general liability assurance language and again that can be found in AG's testimony.

And I'm also gonna make a note that that excludes liability- liability coverage with regards to gross negligence and misconducts which is appropriate. Besides that, we will defect the date to July 1st, 3000. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1314. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendment. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any Members wishing to vote no? Any Members voting with reservation? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. Moving on to the next bill, HB616, DOE charter schools, education of workers and workforce safety- workplace safety. Members, I appreciate the work that the department has done on this thus far, but I would like to move this bill with some amendments.

Instead of the DOE paying for the cost it takes to acquire TRO will request that educational workers be reimbursed for that and that attorney fees shall not be included in that. That's page four.

Also, we want to recommend the statutory provisions already found that describes harassment that's currently found in HRS 711-1106 will clarify that paid leave is applicable only to when educational workers are seeking judicial protection. Besides that, we will defect the date till July 1st, 3000. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 616. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair Vote aye. Any Members voting no? Any Members voting with a reservation?

Okay. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. HB88. This is with regards to DOE and a three year pilot program for students athletics travel. Recommendation is the HD1 adding athletic clerk position per DOE's recommendation to help assist with the initiative.

I think we also might run into some legal or potentially state constitutional questions if we don't expand the definition and so Members instead of Maui County I would like to change it to populations that are less than 500,000 technical, non substantive changes and defect the date. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 88. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair Vote aye. Any Members voting no? Any Members voting with reservation? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Thank you Members. Going on to HB 626 Ho'akea program recommendations to pass this with the HD1 blanking out the amount, recommending that same figure in the committee report and defecting the date till July 1st, 3000. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 626. Chairs recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any Members voting to wish- wishing to vote no? Any Members voting with reservation? Kate Cherry Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. HB1496 Kaiapuni Program Complex Area Superintendent Board of Education membership Kaiapuni Program support. I would like to pass this along defecting the date. Questions, Comments, Concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1496. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair Vote aye. Any Members voting no? Any Members voting with reservation? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. HB471 requiring DOE to establish a Korean language program. I want to thank the students for their thoughtful testimony. However, as it was mentioned and the department's testimony, there is already a pathway to establish these types of schools.

I encourage these communities to work with their PSTAs and also in particular their school community councils to share their their thoughts and incorporate it into the learning that way. That's-That's the proper format for that. So we will defer. Moving on to the next bill and the last bill on the agenda.

HB 1346 automatic salary increases for teachers upon funding. Members the recommendation is to pass this with the HD1 defecting the date. Questions, Comments, Concerns? Go Ahead.

Comment Chair. Again I support 100% our teachers. We need to keep them. But I do want to say that I will be voting aye with reservations simply because I also hope you know in the DOE we talk about equity a lot. I hope that we'll see similar treatment for some of the other bargaining units affected.

But support the teachers. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other questions? Comments?

I have a comment. For me this- this bill is pretty straightforward. It just simply says that you automatically pay educators more per their years of service and poor- per their education. That is a best practice. That's what you see in Massachusetts. That's what you see in Singapore.

That's what you see in these other cases. And that there's one thing that is true for everyone in this room and that is that teachers have gotten us here and that's true for all governmental workers.

And so I hope that we can move forward and- and- and support our teachers in this regard because they are how we shape our society. And if there's no teachers, there's no society. And that's the difference. I'll humbly say that. Okay, so with that, Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on the last bill, House Bill 1346. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any Members voting no? Any Members voting with reservation? With reservation for Representative Olds. Any other Members? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Adjourned.